Not guilty, but evicted anyway

Emelyn Cruz Lat, SR: ONE STRIKE EVICTIONS: FIRST OF TWO PARTS

Published 4:00 am, Monday, August 24, 1998

1998-08-24 04:00:00 PDT UNITED STATES -- In Austin, Texas, a woman was beaten by a former boyfriend as her young son watched, then received another blow: news that her apartment manager would toss her out.

In Pahokee, Fla., a woman was kidnapped and held hostage by a gun-wielding former boyfriend, surviving the ordeal only to find she was being evicted from her apartment.

And in Oakland, several elderly tenants are fighting eviction after their grandchildren or guests were arrested for suspected use or possession of drugs in or near their apartments.

"one strike, you're out" policy is being widely interpreted as grounds to evict tenants of public housing who've committed no crime - and sometimes have themselves been victims of violence.

Advocates for the poor, who are suing over such evictions in many states, say the vaguely worded policy has led to unfair, inconsistent and inhumane treatment. The innocent, they say, are being swept out along with the guilty.

"You've got a bad set of rules and housing authorities are being led down the wrong way because of simplistic messages," said David Bryson, deputy director of the National Housing Law Project, based in Oakland. "There are going to be a lot of bad cases that get through, and the ones on the fringes begin to look pretty ridiculous."

More than 3 million people live in projects subsidized by the nation's $17.5 billion-a-year low-income housing program, run by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.

For years, many tenants were terrorized by drug dealers and gangs that virtually ran some of the 13,755 housing projects in U.S. cities.

The one-strike policy began as an election year pledge by President Clinton to crack down on criminals he said were

"destroying the lives of decent tenants."

Imposed in early 1996, the policy allows housing authorities to evict anyone thought to be endangering the health or safety of others, and bars those with criminal records from ever returning to federally subsidized housing. Tenants don't have to be arrested to be evicted.

84% increase in evictions&lt;

A survey of half the public housing agencies nationwide showed that about 3,847 tenants were ousted from public housing during the first six months of the policy - an 84 percent increase over conventional evictions in the previous six months. One-strike evictions are faster and easier than other evictions, which require complicated legal steps and can drag on for months.

More than 46,000 people - guests or relatives thought to be criminals - have been barred from visiting housing projects under agreements signed by tenants who would otherwise have been evicted.

The policy has been credited by HUD with making housing projects safer. But it's unclear how broadly Congress intended it to be applied.

One-strike was meant to hold "a person on a lease liable for everything that goes on in an apartment. (For instance) if someone was selling drugs and the person knew about it and didn't do anything to stop it," said David Horne, chief of staff for U.S. Rep. Rick Lazio, R-N.Y., who is chairman of the Housing and Community Opportunity Committee.

HUD Secretary Andrew Cuomo did not respond to Examiner requests for an interview, but in published reports last year said, "We want to evict the wrongdoer. If there is complicity on the part of the leaseholder, then that person should also be evicted, but an innocent person, no."

Culpability taken into account&lt;

Federal guidelines allow agencies to consider the tenant's culpability and the effect of eviction on children, and to take into account whether people who committed offenses still live in the apartments.

But interviews with housing advocates, lawyers and housing authority leaders show that tenants who committed only minor infractions or claimed no knowledge of wrongdoing often are evicted.

In San Francisco, the Housing Authority cracked down on people who owned dogs after a spate of attacks by pit bulls. None of the dogs in question attacked anyone.

Most housing authorities have used the policy to get tough on drugs. Some have cracked down on violence by trying to evict women whose boyfriends beat them.

"No one is saying that the problems should be ignored," said Fred Fuchs, a lawyer and public housing expert in Texas. "The challenge is exercising the policy in a humane fashion, allowed by the legislation, and I think, intended by the Congress."

The policy has faced legal challenges in many states, including California, Massachusetts, Minnesota, North Carolina, Maryland, Texas, Louisiana, Kentucky, Florida, Illinois and New York.

Among the cases:

*In Baltimore, Md., a 66-year-old man was hospitalized after a stroke. While he was recovering, his son, who does not normally live with him, sold drugs from the man's subsidized apartment. The father received a one-strike eviction notice when he came home from the hospital.

*In Pahokee, Fla., a 27-year-old woman was kidnapped, threatened with a gun and held hostage in a car by her former boyfriend. She received a one-strike eviction notice.

*In Louisville, Ky., housing officials filed an eviction notice against a woman after she was attacked by teenagers who had quarreled with her daughter. The woman, who had tried to block the teens from entering her home, was splashed with liquid drain cleaner, causing permanent disfigurement.

*At Boston's Old Colony housing development, the policy was used to evict three families whose children had already been ousted for allegedly harassing neighbors.

*In Austin, Texas, 32-year-old Margaret Ramirez was beaten by an ex-boyfriend while her 6-year-old son, Jesse, tried to fend him off with a stick. Her one-strike eviction was stopped only after Mayor Bruce Todd intervened.

No cases so anger advocates for the poor more than evictions of women after they were battered.

Problem rampant in Texas&lt;

"It's considered standard operating procedure now (to evict women after domestic fights)," said D'An Anders, an advocate with the Central Texas Women's Council.

"It's a problem in Texas and it's absolutely rampant."

Advocates fear the policy will discourage women from calling for help.

"Do they call the police and risk losing their homes or do they take the beatings?" asked Heather Way, a staff attorney with Legal Aid of Central Texas, which has found similar cases in Florida, Massachusetts, Minnesota, and New York.

The message being sent to tenants is chilling, said Mac McCreight, a senior lawyer with Greater Boston Legal Services. It's " "we want you to have safe communities and if some good families get thrown out with the bad, so be it. That's the price you have to pay.' I think it's the wrong message."

Horne, the chief of staff for Rep. Lazio, said he had not heard of the directive being used to evict battered women or the unwitting elderly.

"I would be very surprised if that's the way it's being used," he said.

But judges around the nation are hearing plenty.

Volunteer legal help&lt;

Many tenants filing suits are represented for free by volunteer legal groups and legal aid societies. The most common question put to the courts: whether someone can be evicted for a crime they knew nothing about.

Because most lawsuits have been filed in state courts, rulings apply only to specific states and often contradict rulings in other states.

California and Louisiana appellate courts have decided that tenants can be evicted even if they did not know of crimes committed inside or outside their apartments by relatives or guests.

"What matters is that an apartment became a place where (illegal) things went on and that would be enough," said Larry Bush, spokesman for HUD's Bay Area office.

Though the policy is harsh, he said, the goal is not: Tenants in public housing should have the same right to safety and security as anyone in private housing.

Yet in North Carolina, Illinois, New York and Massachusetts, state courts have ruled that tenants cannot be evicted unless they condoned, participated in or should have known about crimes.

"The government needs to do something to make the intent of Congress stronger," said Sherri Myers, staff attorney with the Legal Aid Society of Louisville, Ky.

"The guidelines need to be clearer."

Politics plays a role&lt;

Many experts say it's unlikely federal officials would clarify the policy because the problem is controversial and the current political climate aims to wean people from public assistance.

"It is not a receptive climate these days, so trying to go to Congress to get anything done is not likely to work and may even backfire," said Bryson, the deputy director of the National Housing Law Project in Oakland. "And I don't see people at HUD having the political courage to step forward and draw a different line."

Advocates are pinning their hopes on the courts, preferably federal courts, where a ruling could ripple through the nation.

This summer, all eyes are on the U.S. District Court in San Francisco, where Judge Charles Breyer is reviewing a case brought by the Eviction Defense Center in Oakland on behalf of four elderly and disabled Oakland tenants facing eviction under the one-strike rule.

In June, Breyer temporarily blocked the evictions, and indicated that evicting unwitting tenants for the actions of others may be unconstitutional.

The outcome of the case could lead to changes in the way the policy is enforced.

Lawyers on both sides of the one-strike issue say it may not be easy to draft a policy that protects tenants from crime while ensuring the rights of tenants whose friends or relatives commit crimes.

While justice is best served when a fair review of each case, "it's always simpler for a government agency dealing with problems to make across-the-board rules than to deal with issues on a case-by-case basis," said John Reinstein, legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union in Massachusetts.&lt;